We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Monday, 01 April 19
FORCE MAJEURE SUCCESS NOT A SEA CHANGE - BALTIC EXCHANGE
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
It is difficult to successfully argue that contractual performance has been prevented or delayed by force majeure. This is in part because English courts or arbitration tribunals will interpret these clauses strictly and narrowly against the party seeking to rely on them.
Recent decisions, including Triple Point Technology v PTT (2017) and Seadrill Ghana v Tullow Ghana (2018), are evidence of this approach. However, Sucden Middle-East, represented by Nick Fisher of HFW, has recently relied successfully on such a clause in the Commercial Court, on appeal from arbitration.
The case, Sucden Middle-East v Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, “The Mv Muammer Yagci”, involved a shipment of sugar to Algeria on the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form. The facts found by the arbitral tribunal were that when the cargo arrived in Algeria, the cargo-receivers submitted false import documents to local customs authorities. The local customs responded by seizing the cargo, using powers under customs laws and regulations.
A delay to discharging the cargo of four and a half months ensued. Sucden, as charterers, claimed this delay fell within the exceptions to laytime running under clause 28. Owners disagreed. At first instance, the arbitral tribunal agreed with owners.
Charterers appealed to the Commercial Court. Permission to bring the appeal was given on the basis that the question of law was one of general public importance, as it related to a standard form contract in wide commercial usage.
The judgement
The question before the Commercial Court was: “Where a cargo is seized by the local customs authorities at the discharge port causing a delay to discharge, is the time so lost caused by ‘government interferences’ within the meaning of clause 28 of the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form?” Clause 28 reads:
“Strikes and Force Majeure
In the event that whilst at or off the loading place or discharging place the loading and/or discharging of the vessel is prevented or delayed by any of the following occurrences: strikes, riots, civil commotions, lockouts of men, accidents and/or breakdowns on railways, stoppages on railway and/or river and/or canal by ice or frost, mechanical breakdowns at mechanical loading plants, government interferences, vessel being inoperative or rendered inoperative due to terms and conditions of employment of the Officers and Crew, time so lost shall not count as laytime on demurrage or detention…”
In deciding whether a force majeure event had occurred, the Court focused on the construction of “government interferences”. It was fairly straightforward to establish that a government entity acting in a sovereign capacity was involved, but owners argued that the government being involved was not enough and that there had to be “interferences”. In reaching its decision that there had been no interference, the tribunal had considered it a key point that seizure was an “ordinary” action. The Court rejected this conclusion. It held that the seizure of the cargo was not routine and did fall within the meaning of “interferences”. Seizure is a significant exercise of executive power and therefore could not be regarded as “ordinary”. Suspected or predictable consequences are not the same as ordinary actions (such as the inspection of the cargo by a government surveyor): “In the usual course of things, cargo is not seized and property rights are not invaded in that way.” The very fact that false documents were involved showed that the circumstances were not routine.
The Court emphasised that it was of “real importance” that its conclusion on the language was not difficult to apply, nor did it in any way offend commercial common sense.
The owners’ causation argument was also dismissed, as it was held that the seizure caused the delay, even if the submission of false documents caused the seizure.
Further detail
In allowing the appeal, the Court still maintained the strict and narrow approach to force majeure, stressing that “the answer given to the question is only a narrow ‘yes’. It is ‘yes’ where the circumstances are as in the present case. The answer does not address all of the circumstances that may come within or fall outside clause 28. The answer is concerned only with the seizure of a cargo and with that seizure by a customs authority that is a State revenue authority acting in a sovereign capacity”.
This judgment gives some welcome publicly-available guidance on the interpretation of a force majeure clause in a standard form widely used in sugar trading. While the charterers were successfully able to rely on the force majeure clause in this case, it does not signal a change in the strict and narrow approach typically adopted by the English courts.
Source: Baltic Exchange
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Friday, 31 July 20
BOTSWANA PLANS MORE COAL-FIRED POWER AS AFRICAN SOLAR ACCELERATES - IEEFA
An African economic leader like Botswana should embrace solar to reduce subsidies and tariff hikes
As Sub-Saharan solar ambition has ...
Wednesday, 29 July 20
2019 U.S. COAL PRODUCTION FALLS TO ITS LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1978 - EIA
In 2019, U.S. coal production totaled 706 million short tons (MMst), a 7% decrease from the 756 MMst mined in 2018. Last year’s production wa ...
Wednesday, 29 July 20
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
The dry bulk sector is beginning to recover from reduced SnP activity recorded in the first quarter of 2020. The table below illustrates that appro ...
Tuesday, 28 July 20
DEUTSCHE BANK TO END GLOBAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN COAL MINING BY 2025 - REUTERS
Deutsche Bank, in a revamp of its policies for fossil fuels, said on Monday that it would end business activities worldwide related to coal mining ...
Monday, 27 July 20
IEEFA ENERGY FINANCE CONFERENCE 2020: COAL, LNG, PETROCHEMICAL SECTORS FACE POOR OUTLOOK AND UPHILL BATTLE FOR INVESTORS
Fossil fuel industries were becoming less financially attractive even before the global coronavirus pandemic
Three major fossil fuel ...
|
|
|
Showing 856 to 860 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- The University of Queensland
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Economic Council, Georgia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
